Why are the Sharks in San Jose and not San Francisco?

[rojac]

For the Bay Area SF has the most prestige, money, and access to transit. For a Canadian, I've never heard of San Jose outside of a hockey context. For vacationing San Francisco makes much more sense.

Branding is huge and San Francisco is a much much bigger name than San Jose.

Any chance the Sharks move to San Francisco when the Warriors do?

I suspect a large number of American hockey fans have never heard of Winnipeg outside of a hockey context, does that mean that the Jets should be moved somewhere with bigger name recognition?

Frankly, as a fellow Canadian, I find it hard to believe that you've never heard of San Jose, California in a non-hockey context.

 

[CrypTic]

In the time it will take to get an arena in SF near a BART Station, the San Jose Diridon BART station will be built.

I'll probably be dead before either happens.

I was thinking more of a METRO extension or, e.g., an express MUNI line from a BART or METRO station to the arena. I think even after the BART extension is built, SJ is less accessible for most of the Bay Area than SF. It's too far south. I'd rather take BART to MUNI to an arena than take BART all the way to SJ. I'd guess that most people in the North Bay or San Mateo County and a lot of the East Bay (but probably not, e.g., Pleasanton ) feel the same way about the accessibility of SF vs SJ.

 

[Bizz]

Also, there's a reason why the Giants won't let the A's move to San Jose, and that's because at least 80% of Giants fans don't live in San Francisco.

 

[rojac]

The Sharks expansion predates Bettmans time in the league by several years.....



I remember as a young lad when San Jose was getting an expansion team. Information wasn't nearly as easy to come by as it is today. And anyway I remember everyone talking about it saying that a new team was going to San Francisco.

Really? I remember in the very early days, before the actual location was decided upon, that the Bay Area was getting a franchise, but I can' t recall ever hearing San Francisco.

 

[weastern bias]

I would agree that SF is a nice place to visit

If only because when you visit somewhere, you get to leave at the end

If San Jose is an 'armpit', SF is an infected cyst on a hobo's back

 

[IU Hawks fan]

Not a chance they move, by the way the Niners just moved closer to San Jose than San Francisco.

And the A's are dying to get there.

 

[PCSPounder]

You should go to Atherton next time you are up there.

Holy Gated Cities, Batman!

 

[IU Hawks fan]

But I've already heard of San Jose's reputation since 2009...



If SJ were the better location, then how come it takes an hour to drive from OAK to SJ, which is the same time for an Amtrak trip from Oakland Coliseum to SAP Center?



If anything, SJ is more like Staten Island: hard to reach and the tech industry center of their respective metro areas.



It's because the 49ers have become and is its first-EVER sports dynasty franchise San Francisco calls its own, a decade before the existence of the San Jose Sharks. Yes, at the level:

In Chronological Order:

--Red Sox own New England; 1912-15-16-18
--Packers own Wisconsin; 1929-30-31
--Yankees own New York; 1936-37-38-39
--DA BEARS own Chicago; 1940-41-43-46
--Maple Leafs own Toronto; 1947-48-49-51
--Canadiens own Montreal; 1956-57-58-59-60
--Athletics own Oakland; 1972-73-74
--Steelers own Pittsburgh; 1974-75-78-79
--Lakers own Los Angeles; 1980-82-85-87-88
--49ers own San Francisco; 1981-84-88-89
--Cowboys own Dallas; 1992-93-95

In contrast, Los Angeles is no longer an NFL town anyway, to the point the 49ers, the Green Bay Packers and the Dallas Cowboys are the Holy Trinity of the NFC.

The sheer size of Los Angeles is one major boon the LA Kings franchise is finally cashing in on, along the way to helping the NHL and the sport of ice hockey grow.



Off-topic: I think The Bronx can offer the spot of old Yankee Stadium to build a new football field.

Back on topic: I even saw an ESPN commercial that showed John Anderson and Bram Weinstein, dressed up as the two Sharks in Katy Perry's Super Bowl XLIX performance.

Football was completely irrelevant until the 60s. If anyone owned Chicago in the 30s and 40s it was the Cubs.

 

[Goldenshark]

Really? I remember in the very early days, before the actual location was decided upon, that the Bay Area was getting a franchise, but I can' t recall ever hearing San Francisco.

Bay Area is short for San Francisco Bay Area, San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose are all a part of the San Francisco Bay Area. Yes, they're 3 different cities but they're all one TV market and SF is the big dog out of those 3 cities. SF would have more population than San Jose if it had the room geographically but it doesn't because it's surrounded by water on 3 sides. San Jose has the room geographically and that's why it has more people. SF's downtown is like a mini-Manhattan.

When the NHL expanded there in 1967 with the Seals, they wanted SF, not Oakland, because the WHL team was the SF Seals, not to mention their Triple AAA baseball team used to be called the SF Seals. Unfortunately the only place to play was the small Cow Palace in Daly City (South SF) and it wasn't adequate and so they played in Oakland and failed. When the new expansion was announced in 1990 they were not going to make the same mistake.

SF would always be the first choice but there are no adequate arenas and San Jose was able build one and that's why they're there and if you recall the Sharks played their first 2 seasons at the Cow Palace and were very successful.

I don't even live in the Bay Area anymore, I don't care where the Sharks play as long as they stay in NorCal, but I personally would like SF because it has the biggest brand recognition and it's the funnest city to visit in NorCal.

 

[PCSPounder]

how many people in New York would cheer for the Devils? Because that's a more apt comparison.

The bay area may look like one giant cohesive metro area, and in some ways it is, but in truth its three cities with their own identities that share a media market

This is about as accurate a short description of this phenomenon as I've seen.

Traffic is a bear, BTW; it was always a feat to make it on time to games from Mountain View... to the Cow Palace. I can scarcely imagine trying to get into "The City" for baseball games now (hallelujah for improved transit overall... somewhat). At least Candlestick had "easy" freeway access (but not nearly enough transit, which is mostly why midweek attendance there was traditionally low for the Giants). So an NHL team couldn't simply build a San Francisco arena; it had to (and has to) be in the right place. That cost massive amounts of money by the standard of whatever time you frame it.

When you consider that the Warriors owners had a spot picked out, were going to fund the whole thing themselves (including the surrounding development that was the real key to making money from it) and STILL got chased to another location? That's San Francisco in a nutshell. It's just that popular.

BTW, you may have heard of the Google Buses? Silicon Valley firms are catering to engineers who'd rather live in "The City" than in the Valley. This upsets anti-gentrification forces in San Francisco, but it's all too common now. It's obviously driving "blue collar" folks out of SF... and Oakland is next. Just a ridiculously insane dynamic in the Bay Area right now.

 

[IU Hawks fan]

how many people in New York would cheer for the Devils? Because that's a more apt comparison.

If no other team ever existed in the metro? Probably a lot.

 

[llamapalooza]

I suspect a large number of American hockey fans have never heard of Winnipeg outside of a hockey context, does that mean that the Jets should be moved somewhere with bigger name recognition?

Frankly, as a fellow Canadian, I find it hard to believe that you've never heard of San Jose, California in a non-hockey context.

I moved to SF a year ago and up until that point, the only context I had ever heard of San Jose was in front of "Sharks."

San Jose may be a large municipality, but it's not a city. It's a suburb. It has the city planning and culture and density and feel of an overgrown suburb, and that's because it literally is one. The city limits ballooned at ludicrous speed in the 50s and 60s as it basically subsumed every suburban municipality around it for miles, with no plan for what to do with all that new land, and so most of the city is just a humongous collection of suburban developments.

Not saying it's the wrong place for the team--just that I think it's a baffling branding choice to use in the name. There's a reason the Islanders were always called the New York Islanders, not the Nassau County Islanders, and yet Nassau County is a substantially larger population than San Jose.

 

[IU Hawks fan]

San Jose may be a large municipality, but it's not a city. It's a suburb.

Quite the

suburb

they got down there.

Not saying it's the wrong place for the team--just that I think it's a baffling branding choice to use in the name. There's a reason the Islanders were always called the New York Islanders, not the Nassau County Islanders, and yet Nassau County is a substantially larger population than San Jose.

Or because, you know, New York is the name of the state the team plays in.

 

[mr gib]

google up the gunds ... sf welched on an arena deal in the 70's ... mucho bad blood

 

[llamapalooza]

Quite the

suburb

they got down there.

That's a very selective image. There is a small downtown core in SJ, yes, but the population density is less than a third of SF's. This is IMO a much more honest pic of San Jose, since it's a broader view:

Outside of downtown it's subdivisions as far as the eye can see. Again, not saying that's a bad thing--lots of people want two kids, two cars, a garage, and a dog--it's just not an urban area in any meaningful sense of the word.

 

[Goldenshark]

Now compare those pics of San Jose's downtown to this composite pic of San Francisco's with the new arena to be constructed in 2018:

That pic even includes the new Salesforce tower, 2nd tallest building west of the Mississippi, only a few feet shorter than L.A.'s US Bank Tower. There's a reason why SF is called "The City" in NorCal.

 

[RewBicks]

San Jose is considerably larger than SF, residents of the area + Silicon Valley have a ton of money, VERY easy transit to and from the arena, land is cheaper and more readily available.

 

[RewBicks]

BTW, you may have heard of the Google Buses? Silicon Valley firms are catering to engineers who'd rather live in "The City" than in the Valley. This upsets anti-gentrification forces in San Francisco, but it's all too common now. It's obviously driving "blue collar" folks out of SF... and Oakland is next. Just a ridiculously insane dynamic in the Bay Area right now.

There is no middle class in most of the Bay at this point. You're either renting (possibly in an extremely poor area, e.g. EPA) so you can go to school or work at Subway, or paying 2 million for an 1800 square foot Eichler with some nice furniture.

 

[Brodie]

A better question might be why no team in the Bay Area ever attempted the solution used in the OTHER Bay Area... why not the San Francisco Bay Sharks, Giants, 49ers and Warriors?

 

[Brodie]

There is no middle class in most of the Bay at this point. You're either renting (possibly in an extremely poor area, e.g. EPA) so you can go to school or work at Subway, or paying 2 million for an 1800 square foot Eichler with some nice furniture.

pretty much this, the sprawl out there is heading toward Sacramento at an extreme clip. A former co-worker of mine recently moved to Vacaville and commutes to SFO every day.

 

[RewBicks]

pretty much this, the sprawl out there is heading toward Sacramento at an extreme clip. A former co-worker of mine recently moved to Vacaville and commutes to SFO every day.

I know someone who does Vacaville to Los Altos (!) five days a week, which I can't even imagine.

 

[BattleBorn]

That's not San Jose.

SJ's downtown core does kind of stink due to that fact that it's so close to the airport. I'm pretty sure they're limited to a maximum of 25 floors in each building which makes the ability to have a major corporation's headquarters contained within one building somewhat limited. The vast majority of the major corporations in the Silicon Valley set up shop in large campuses and office parks instead.

 

[Goldenshark]

A better question might be why no team in the Bay Area ever attempted the solution used in the OTHER Bay Area... why not the San Francisco Bay Sharks, Giants, 49ers and Warriors?

Good question, I lived in the Tampa Bay area for a year and always wondered that for SF, especially for the Warriors and now the 49ers. The Rays play in St. Pete but are known as Tampa Bay, I think 4 words is too long for sports name branding. I don't know of any sports team that has 3 words for a city name.

 

[PCSPounder]

There is no middle class in most of the Bay at this point. You're either renting (possibly in an extremely poor area, e.g. EPA) so you can go to school or work at Subway, or paying 2 million for an 1800 square foot Eichler with some nice furniture.

To expand:

In Portland, my wife and I split $1,275 per month (which would be $1,220 without a cat and a storage space) for a smallish one-bedroom apartment just a bit more than a mile from the Willamette River, with all the rich folk uphill from us and within easy walking distance from light rail. Out in the suburbs, many of the higher end "complexes" rent 2-bedroom units for around the same price, with much more amenities.

To rent in the city of San Francisco, the AVERAGE for a one-bedroom apartment is $3,002. Add $1,000 for the second bedroom. The average overall rent within 10 miles of town is $3,469.

 

[Mattb124]

This thread was based on an ill-conceived premise, and it is amazing that it has gotten this much play. All one has to do is to consider that the San Francisco 49ers recently left San Francisco for the San Jose area to validate this.

Aside from the significantly higher population, San Jose has vastly more money from a corporate sponsorship perspective (contrary to what the OP belies), and has better transportation characteristics in general (especially considering where the Tank is located).

SF has some nice aspects, but IMO frankly it sucks from a sporting events perspective in terms of getting people into and out of the city. Public transit options may be better than in the south bay, but outside of that the driving/parking aspect is brutal. I look at what was proposed for the Warriors arena and just laugh - it could take hours just to get to the freeway after a game.